Week 31, 2020
People Archetypes, vol 3 — Scheduling, Altruism, and Contribution
Each week I share three ideas on and about the future of work. And this week, I return to a theme of long past: archetypes.
Why am I writing about this? Archetypes are generalizations; universal models of people and personalities that (supposedly) influence human behavior. It’s an interesting (if not very scientific) topic that I’ve written about before (see w292018, w302018). In this installment (the third in the series), I’m mixing old with new for a novel perspective:
1. Scheduling
Paul Graham penned an influential essay back in 2009 on the difference between Makers and Managers that, more than anything else, categorizes people on the basis of how they spend their time. Makers make things. They do deep work. And they divide their time into half-day blocks so as to provide time for concentration and focus. Managers, on the other hand, are firefighters. They manage people and things, and they get shit done. And in contrast to their Maker counterparts, they divided their time into short 30-min bursts of activity.
Are you a Maker or a Manager?
For more, read Graham’s original essay.
2. Altruism
In his 2014 book Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success, Adam Grant divides people into two camps: altruistic Givers and selfish Takers. But the real insight is this: Givers are at once the most and the least productive members of the workforce. What sets the productive Givers apart is their ability to set boundaries. While Agreeable Givers say “Yes!” to everything, Disagreeable Givers are more cautious — agreeing only to what they can accommodate given their workload.
Are you an Agreeable or Disagreeable Giver?
For more, check out w302018.
3. Contribution
David Epstein writes about Specialists and Integrators in his 2019 bestseller Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World. Specialists are narrowly-focused domain experts with the skills needed to continuously improve their trade. Integrators are their exact opposite: generalists with wide-ranging interests whose primary contribution is one of disruption and cross-pollination. Both are critically important. But in a “wicked” world of constant and continuous change, we need Integrators more than ever.
Are you a Specialist or an Integrator?
For more, read QZ’s book review.
Archetypes are interesting in that they force us to consider extremes and polar opposites. And that can be useful when hiring and exploring cultural fit etc. But there are limitations as well, obviously. These are generalizations, and no one person will perfectly fit any single archetype, much less a combination thereof (e.g., Disagreeable and Introverted Rock Star Maker/Integrator with a Growth Mindset). Still, it does make for interesting conversation.
That’s all for this week.
Until next time.
/Andreas
